Testing for renin and aldosterone in clinical laboratories is complicated by pre-analytical considerations such as the posture for blood collection and susceptibility to cryoactivation of renin. From an analytical perspective, there are both renin activity and renin mass or concentration assays available. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/cl-82198.html There can also be variability in result reporting practices and the aldosterone-renin ratio (ARR) cut-off applied to screen for primary aldosteronism (PA). The Institute for Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH) Centre for Proficiency Testing surveyed laboratories on their handling of renin and aldosterone testing to better understand current practices.
An online survey was prepared and sent to 134 Canadian laboratories enrolled in endocrinology proficiency testing with IQMH.
One hundred twenty Ontario laboratories submitted responses. While only six (5%) laboratories perform testing for both renin and aldosterone, 108 (90%) collect and process specimens to be tested by reference laboratories. The sutice differs from peers and/or recommended protocols, laboratories should review their practices.In 2009, the Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry (JSCC) recommended a reference method for the measurement of serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. This automated method uses cholesterol esterase-cholesterol dehydrogenase to measure cholesterol levels in fractions obtained after ultracentrifugation and dextran sulfate/magnesium chloride precipitation. In the present study, using fresh samples, we compared the LDL-C and HDL-C levels measured using this method with those measured using the traditional Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-beta-quantification (BQ) method.
and methods Using both the JSCC and CDC-BQ methods, LDL-C/HDL-C levels were measured in 47 non-diseased and 126 diseased subjects, whose triglyceride levels were lower than 11.29?mmol/L (1000?mg/dL).
For LDL-C, the equation of the line representing the correlation between the two methods was y?=?0.991x + 0.009?mmol/L; r?=?0.999; and Sy/x?=?0.025?mmol/L, where x is the mean LDL-C level measured using the CDC-BQ method. Similarly, for HDL-C, the equation of the line representing the correlation between the two methods was y?=?0.988x + 0.041?mmol/L, r?=?0.999, and Sy/x?=?0.019?mmol/L, where x is the mean HDL-C level measured using the CDC-BQ method.
The JSCC method agreed with the CDC-BQ method in cases of both non-diseased and diseased subjects, including those with dyslipidemia.
The JSCC method agreed with the CDC-BQ method in cases of both non-diseased and diseased subjects, including those with dyslipidemia.Population based reference intervals are fundamental for interpreting results for quantitative laboratory tests. In patients with a specific chronic disorder, however, results of various tests may regularly be different than in healthy individuals. reference intervals may therefore have limited value in such patients. Instead, reference intervals may be useful, as they describe the results distribution in populations resembling the specific patients. Few disease-associated reference intervals are available in the literature. The aim of this study was to estimate reference intervals for common laboratory tests for patient populations with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis without significant comorbidity, using a novel algorithm.
Laboratory test results and hospital discharge diagnoses were collected for relevant patients. An algorithm was developed to identify discharge diagnoses significantly associated with high or low results for specific tests. After excluding patients w algorithm based on routinely recorded patient data.POCT (Point of Care Test) or (Point of Care Testing) has been widely used, as it can provide quick results to be acted upon immediately by the clinician. However, POCT devices do not always have the same accuracy and precision as Lab equipment. Laboratorians need to be much better at communicating what is being done in the "lab" and how that relates to what the clinicians are doing with the results of the tests they order.The main aim of this work was to compare the methods of DNA isolation in the moulds of genus with special regard to the amount and purity of the DNA acquired. The acquired DNA was then amplified by specific real-time PCR.
Five DNA extraction procedures were carried out in a Class 2 Biosafety cabinet in a dedicated room with suitable biosafety precautions and appropriate biowaste disposal methods. A total of 6 clinical strains were used.
From the viewpoint of concentration and purity, methods A shown abundant amount of fungal DNA whereas methods E report a pure fungal DNA with R260/280 of 1.7 near the optimal 1.8. The DNA quantity reach statistically difference at ANOVA test with p value 0.0005.
Overall, the E method was the most efficient method in the extraction of DNA from fungal cultures compared to the other methods considering time, cost, technical expertise, and instrumentation. Use of this assay will allow researchers to obtain DNA from fungi quickly for use in molecular assays.
Overall, the E method was the most efficient method in the extraction of DNA from fungal cultures compared to the other methods considering time, cost, technical expertise, and instrumentation. Use of this assay will allow researchers to obtain DNA from fungi quickly for use in molecular assays.A newly developed fully automated Lumipulse G AMH method (Fujirebio Diagnostics) was recently introduced in clinical laboratories for quantitative determination of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level in human serum or plasma. AMH has emerged as value-added biomarker in the assessment of ovarian reserve, in diagnosis of granulosa cells cancer and in the investigation of gonadal disorders. We compared Lumipulse G AMH assay performances with other methods largely applied for AMH measurements.
The Lumipulse G AMH method based on two-step sandwich chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay was assessed on Lumipulse G600II analyzer. The evaluation study included imprecisions, sensitivity and linearity whereas a comparison study was performed on a heterogeneous population of 114 patients by using the Elecsys AMH Plus assay on COBAS 8000 e602 module (Roche Diagnostics).
Lumipulse G AMH system showed good repeatability (within-run imprecision) with CV values below 1% (0.5% and 0.9% for high and low serum pools). Similarly within-laboratory imprecision was assessed with CV values of 2.